2015 (10) TMI 50 - AT - Service Tax

Courier service - Whether the activity of transporting the goods from door-to-door internationally by the appellants is covered by the courier service definition and appellant is liable to pay service tax or not - Held that - Commissioner should have considered what is the meaning of time-sensitive and whether the appellant s activities does amount to transportation of time-sensitive documents, goods or articles. In fact, not even a single customer has been contacted to know whether any customer felt that the activities undertaken by appellants are transportation of time-sensitive documents, goods or articles. No investigations have been conducted or verification of activities has been conducted. However, it is too late now for conducting such investigations. In any case, we consider that it was necessary for the Commissioner to examine the activity undertaken by them and the definition of courier service and coming to the conclusion as to whether the activities of the appellants where they are not paying service tax would amount to transportation of time-sensitive documents, goods or articles as provided in the definition of courier service . - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the activity of transporting goods internationally by the appellants falls under the 'courier service' definition, making them liable to pay service tax.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the liability of the appellants to pay service tax for transporting goods internationally. Initially, the appellants sought clarification from the department in 2004 and received a favorable response. However, in 2006, the Commissioner changed the decision, requiring the appellants to pay service tax immediately. The matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which allowed for a fresh show cause notice to be issued. It was revealed that a show cause notice had already been issued before the Supreme Court's decision, raising concerns about its validity. The appellants argued that the notice was improper as the matter was sub judice. The Commissioner agreed to reconsider the issue, and it was decided to remand the matter for fresh adjudication.

The main issue was the determination of the liability of the services provided by the appellants to service tax. The appellants contended that their submissions were not adequately considered by the Commissioner. They raised 16 grounds explaining why their activity differed from courier services and highlighted their compliance with Courier Imports and Exports Regulations, 1998. The Commissioner's failure to address these points and the definition of 'courier service' led to the conclusion that the issue was not properly considered. Specifically, the Commissioner's interpretation of 'time-sensitive' in the definition of 'courier agency' was questioned as it was not given due consideration. The lack of customer feedback or investigations into the nature of the appellants' activities further highlighted the need for a thorough examination. Consequently, it was deemed necessary to remand the matter for a comprehensive reassessment by the original adjudicating authority.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal decided to remand the case for a fresh consideration of all issues, providing the appellants with a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The decision emphasized the importance of a proper examination of the appellants' activities in relation to the definition of 'courier service' to determine their liability to pay service tax.